The 2016 presidential campaign is still being litigated – literally.As Trump administration controversies command media attention, alittle-noticed set of lawsuits against the Democratic Party continues toplay out in the courts – including one claiming coordination with theClinton campaign against Bernie Sanders amounted to election fraud.The case being heard in a Florida courtroom dates back to last summer,when the Democrats were thrown into turmoil following the leak ofdocuments that appeared to show some DNC officials sought to undermineSanders in the party primary. Jared Beck, a Harvard law expert, shortlyafterward filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents of 45states against the DNC and former chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz.The DNC has been trying for months to have the case dismissed, andscored a temporary victory last year when it was decided the plaintiffshad improperly filed paperwork.Beck has been fighting the DNC every step of the way, and is demandingthe party repay individuals and Sanders supporters for contributionsmade during the election, alleging misappropriation of funds.“If we can’t trust the two political parties to run an election in afair manner, who can we trust?” Beck told Fox News.SANDERS-INSPIRED DEM SEEKS UPSET OVER PELOSIDuring the most recent hearing on April 25 before a judge in thesouthern district of Florida, the DNC made a strictly legal argument –one that surely would have rankled Sanders supporters.Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss thatthe party holds the right to select its candidate any way it chooses andis not bound by pledges of fairness.“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into backrooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate thatway.’ That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And thatwould have also been their right,” Spiva argued.Although the Article 5, Section 4 of the Democratic Party charterstipulates that it will function with total neutrality during Democraticprimaries, the DNC lawyer argued the promise was non-binding.“And there's no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or haveanother candidate advantaged. There's no contractual obligation here,”he said.“This lawsuit has nothing to do with politics or political disagreementswithin the DNC. This case should concern everyone because it goes to theheart of the country’s democratic institutions,” Beck told Fox News.A victory by Beck could have a profound impact on how the DemocraticParty conducts business in 2020 and beyond. However, those familiar withelection law say he faces an uphill climb.“I don’t think it is going to amount to much,” said Michael Toner, alawyer with the Wiley-Rein and a former legal counsel for the RepublicanNational Committee.“Courts don’t typically get in the middle of intraparty disputes andwhile I am sure the DNC does not appreciate having to fight thislawsuit, judges are very reluctant to exercise their jurisdiction overpolitics,” Toner said.The DNC attorneys also contend the suit is meritless, arguing mostSanders donors do not even support the lawsuit.“The vast majority of whom almost certainly do not share Plaintiffs’political views—have no realistic means of disassociating from thisaction, brought in their name against the political party they likelysupport,” the DNC lawyers wrote in their motion.Toner said the danger to the DNC would come if the lawsuit entered thediscovery phase, which is why an affiliated case alleging the DNC failedto pay overtime wages poses a potentially greater threat.The DNC this week filed a motion to dismiss in the second class-actionlawsuit, which alleged workers at the Democratic National Convention andthrough the election were not paid a minimum wage, while others wererefused overtime compensation guaranteed by federal and state law.The 2016 Democratic platform characterized the current federal minimumof $7.25 per hour as “a starvation wage and must be increased to aliving wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family inpoverty.”The suit also names the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and othersinvolved in the party's 2016 national convention in the lawsuit. ThePennsylvania Democratic Party did not return calls for comment.“While the DNC was not the employer in this case, the DNC follows allemployment and wage laws to make sure that everyone who works a fulltime job receives a fair wage,” DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said in astatement to Fox News.Although the individuals participated in party-building activities, suchas voter registration, soliciting volunteers and knocking on doors, thenational party argues they were not officially DNC staff.Justin Swidler, the lawyer behind the suit, told Fox News, “We believein fair pay for fair work. The lawsuit seeks only that. We believe theseideals are consistent with the platform of the DNC.”According to individuals familiar with the case, the DNC filed anothermotion to dismiss this week, but neither side anticipates a promptresolution of the case given the court’s full docket.

Post by a425coupleJustin Swidler, the lawyer behind the suit, told Fox News, “We believein fair pay for fair work. The lawsuit seeks only that. We believe theseideals are consistent with the platform of the DNC.”According to individuals familiar with the case, the DNC filed anothermotion to dismiss this week, but neither side anticipates a promptresolution of the case given the court’s full docket.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/22/dnc-battling-class-action-suit-alleging-sanders-was-robbed-in-2016.html

Robbed?!?!?!?

Hell, he was mugged, thrown under Shrillary's bus, run over twice andtreated like he was a common gate crasher!